Report
of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,

Lower
Hutt on

Thursday
4 May 2017
commencing at 6.00pm

PRESENT: Cr G Barratt (Chair)

Cr L
Bridson Cr S Edwards

Cr M Lulich Cr
G McDonald

Cr C Milne Cr
L Sutton

APOLOGIES: An apology was received
from Mayor WR Wallace and
Cr J Briggs.

IN
ATTENDANCE: Cr MJ Cousins

Mr T
Stallinger, Chief Executive (part meeting)

Mr M Reid,
General Manager, Community Services

Ms M Laban, Community Projects and Relationship
Manager

Mrs D Hunter, Community Advisor Funding and
Community Contracts

Mr M Mercer, Divisional Manager,
Community Hubs (part meeting)

Ms S Lytollis, Communications and
Marketing Advisor

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Communications and
Marketing Advisor opened the meeting with a Karakia.

1.APOLOGIES

Resolved:(Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton) Minute
No. CSC 17201

"That the apologies received
from Mayor Wallace and Cr Briggs be accepted and leave of absence be
granted."

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item
to which they relate.

Resolved:(Cr Barratt/Cr Milne)
Minute No. CSC 17202

"That
in terms of Standing Order 15.2, the time limit for public comment be
extended to allow for all those present to speak."

3.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
DECLARATIONS

There
were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Recommendations to Council - 23 May 2017

a)

Review
of Community Funding (17/656)

Report No. CSC2017/2/107 by the
Community Projects and Relationship Manager.

Speaking under
public comment, Mrs B Hay, representing the Stokes Valley Community House
and Mrs A Godfrey, representing the Petone Community House and Board expressed
concern with the proposed Community Funding Strategy. They explained they
had been working closely with Council for the past three years under the
existing strategy and were concerned the proposed strategy could undermine
the good work undertaken to date. They were appreciative of the proposed 3-5
year funding cycles in the proposed strategy, but considered the total amount
of funding available ($700,000), was not a lot of money. They believed that
if Council partially funded a number of projects, not all projects would be
fully completed. They acknowledged there were additional avenues that
not-for-profit organisations could apply to, but that these funds were
strongly contested. They expressed further concern at the weight given to
the 2016 survey and considered the survey was a missed opportunity to fully
understand the value of what community groups accomplished.

Mrs Hay and Mrs
Godfrey expressed further concern that there had been limited consultation
about the proposal. They asked members to delay recommending the funding
review proposal until consultation with all the users had occurred and the
full implications were investigated and understood.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr A Sainsbury, on behalf of the Citizens Advice Bureau,
Lower Hutt (CAB) considered nothing was wrong with the existing
contestable funding model, with room for improvement in the way it was used.
He expressed concern that the CABs of the City may not fit into the proposed
strategy, and believed the new strategy was inequitable as the CAB leases a
Council building. He stated further concern with the lack of consultation
and was unclear how the CAB could continue to provide an on-going service to
the community, under the proposal. He asked members to delay recommending
the funding review until further consultation and consideration had occurred.

Speaking under
public comment, Ms I Rangiwhetu, represenging the Petone Citizens Advice
Bureau (CAB) supported Mr Sainsbury’s comments. She considered the CABs
should be adequately funded under the proposed funding system, and maintained
there was no information as to issues with the current system. She
acknowledged that ongoing secured funding allowed the CAB to operate. She
considered historical funding of CABs showed they were an important vehicle
to provide services and should result in CABs being treated differently. By
way of information, Ms Rangiwhetu advised under New Zealand CAB’s policy all CABs
must apply to separate entities for funding, which greatly reduced the
options for applications. She concluded CABs were vital and neutral.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr K Buck, Co-ordinator CAB Petone, stated there was
no evidence that the current funding model was not working, or that change
would provide a better service. He stated one positive outcome of the
proposal was the certainty provided by the five year contracts. He asked
that there be further community involvement before Council made a final
decision.

Speaking under
public comment, Ms A Blackrepresenting Youth Inspire
considered the proposal created a level playing field and could create
collaboration between community groups. She said that it would focus funding
into areas that needed it the most and provided opportunities for new
initiatives. She added that the proposal would impact on Youth Inspire, and
would bring the Council funding regime into line with other funding
providers. She believed the proposal was a targeted, focussed approach and
outcome based.

The
Community Projects and Relationship Manager elaborated on the report. She
explained the existing funding model had been reviewed to create a more
strategic funding approach. She highlighted the survey results indicated
support for change, and acknowledged the concerns raised under public comment
regarding the consultation process.

Ms
K Frykberg, previous Chair of Philanthropy NZ and now a member of the Sir
Edmond Hillary Fellowship Board, said she had provided advice during the
review. She noted that improved transparency and an assurance that Council’s
overarching vision was met, were ideal goals for a funding review. She
advised that demand for community funding would always exceed supply.

The
General Manager, Community Services acknowledged the work the officers had
undertaken to date. He said the purpose of the review was to find ways to
compliment Council’s other spending within communities.

In
reponse to further questions from members, the Community Projects and
Relationship Manager explained the formation of positive working partnerships
with community groups was essential to being able to provide ongoing support
and monetary assistance. She said that having time limit to funding helped
to develop diversity and the ability of organisations to adapt to a changing
environment. She elaborated on the collaborative partnership model,
explaining joint applications from groups offering similar or complementary
initiatives would be welcomed. She added that if Council approved the
proposal, officers would begin developing more detail, with a view to
discussing this with affected groups within six months. She assured members
that any groups that may not fit within the new model, would be assisted to
obtain other funding streams in the community.

The
General Manager, Community Services advised that if the proposal was approved
by Council, officers would hold regular discussions with affected groups to
assist them in preparation for the 1 July 2018 commencement date, and in
exploring innovative options for cost reductions.

Members noted that
while there was no evidence
the current model was not working the proposal may show a better way of
allocating funding. They acknowledged the good work the CABs undertook, and
were assured by officers that this would be taken into account under a new
system.

Members asked that
officers to provide six monthly progress reports to the Committee.

Members considered the proposal
would provide opportunities for new organisations to be heard; for innovation
in the delivery of community services to be developed; for collaboration
between organisations seeking funding; and for collaboration between funding
agencies to be encouraged. It was agreed that a time limit for funding
should be imposed, and that Council should not be seen as the only source of
funding.

RECOMMENDED: (Cr Barratt/Cr Milne) Minute
No. CSC 17203

“That the Committee recommends
that Council:

(i) approves the 2017/2022 Community Funding Strategy, attached
as Appendix 2 to the report, effective from 1 July 2018;

(ii) notes that changes to
the existing funding arrangements will be made incrementally over 2017/18,
2018/19 and 2019/20; and

(iii) notes that the existing
Community Funding Policy will be amended to ensure it aligns with aspirations
and requirements of this proposed Community Funding Strategy.”

Cr Lulich abstained from voting on
the above matter.

The
meeting adjourned at 7.23pm and resumed at 7.30pm.

b)

Review
of Community Committees (17/661)

Report No.CSC2017/2/108 by the
Community Projects and Relationship Manager.

Speaking
under public comment, Mr
M Ellis expressed
support for the Community Panel proposal as he believed the proposal would
assist in better decision making. He expressed concern that the three panel
areas were inequitable, with the North-East being too large an area. He
explained this area had too many issues and facilities to be understood fully
by one panel.

In response to
questions from members, Mr Ellis explained the panel members would need to
ensure proper networks were established within its areas, especially through
the sports clubs.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr T Heslin expressed support for the Community Panel
proposal, as he believed it would provide communities with a way to complete
projects within its areas. He expressed concern at the large size of the
North-East area, believing this area should be split into two separate
panels.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr F Allen, also speaking on behalf of Mr G McKenna,
spoke of his opposition to the Community Panel proposal as he believed it
undermined the current third tier of local government, and was contrary to
the Local Government Act 2002. He believed the current system worked well
and that communities currently had representation through Wards and Community
Committees. He expressed concern at the small level of remuneration proposed
for members of the Panels, and that previous delegations were removed.

Speaking under
public comment, Ms S LaFrentz and Ms D Mulligan expressed concern at
the changes proposed. Ms LaFrentz considered the previous community
committees were valuable and important to residents, and enabled members to
act as advocates. She asked that four community committees be
re-established.

Ms Mulligan
supported comments made by Ms LaFrentz. She asked that Council maintain
fairness and equality, stating democracy was important. She expressed
concern about the consultation undertaken to date.

In response to questions from
members, Ms LaFrentz and Ms Mulligan agreed the proposal may result in more
funding being available for community projects, but that this was at the
expense of equality and democracy.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr M Shierlaw expressed support for the proposal. He
believed the re-allocation of salaries into the funding budget was a good
idea, but was unclear why the previous delegations were removed.

Speaking under
public comment, Mr M Fisher believed the current proposal was an
emasculation of the powers of communities and represented a loss of
democratic rights to communities. He acknowledged the idea of the community
funding proposal was exciting, but not at the expense of the Panel’s delegations.
He considered that making the Panels too informal and could lead to them
becoming “citizen lobby groups”.

The General Manager, Community
Services elaborated on the report. He acknowledged the public comment and
applauded the work the Community Committees had carried in the last
triennium. He explained the review was about finding a better way to obtain
value out of rate payers’ dollars. He said the concept was borne out of
communities previously applying through the Annual Plan process and not being
able to get funding. He considered that representation would not be
compromised.

In response to further questions
from members, the General Manager, Community Services advised that if the
proposal was expanded to four Panels each Panel would receive approximately
$120,000, reducing the amount of monies for the actual community fund. He
confirmed that the North-East Panel would cover the largest area, and could
have a higher workload. He added that the honorariums, administrative costs
and amount of funding available would be the same as that for the other two
Panels. He said each Panel would have a certain amount of money to use at
its discretion, but within a flexible set of criteria, with all projects
receiving funding having to be aligned to Council priorities.

MOVED: (Cr Barratt/Cr McDonald)

“That the Committee recommends
that Council:

(i) approves the establishment
of three Community Panels; and

(ii) notes the new Community Panel
approach would be reviewed after
12 months.”

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Sutton)

“(i) approves the establishment
of four Community Panels; and

(ii) notes the new Community
Panel approach would be reviewed after
12 months.”

The amendment was declared CARRIED
on a show of hands.

MOVED: (Cr Bridson/Cr McDonald)

“Approves the
delegations be transferred from the previous Community Commitees to
the new Panels.”

The motion was declared LOST on a
show of hands. Cr Lulich abstained from voting on the matter.

The Chair agreed to investigate
how the previous Community Committees would be recognised for their work in
the last triennium.

recommended: (Cr Barratt/Cr McDonald)
Minute No. CSC 17204

“That the Committee recommends
that Council:

(i) approves the establishment
of four Community Panels; and

(ii) notes the new Community Panel
approach would be reviewed after
12 months.”

5.

Community Development Fund Recommended Allocations
2016/2017 (17/639)

Report No.
CSC2017/2/125 by the Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts

The Community Advisor Funding and
Community Contracts elaborated on the report.

In response to
questions from members, the Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts
explained the allocation of funds criteria included the footprint of delivery
of the applicant. She further explained that officers had regular discussions
with other funding agencies to benefit all applicants and to ensure there was
no “double dipping”. She noted that unsuccessful applications were directed
to other funding agencies.

Resolved: (Cr
Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. CSC 17205

“That the Committee agrees to the
recommended allocations for the Community Development Fund 2016/2017,
attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

6.

General Manager's Report (17/512)

Report No.
CSC2017/2/127 by the General Manager Community Services

The General Manager Community
Services elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from
members, the General Manager, Community Services agreed to provide six
monthly updates on the funding issues for the Panels. He agreed that actual
measurement of all activities against the objectives was difficult for some
workstreams. He noted that other agencies may hold data that could be
helpful to measure success of some Council initiatives.

Members noted that in areas where
hubs had not been developed, the communities were seeing the value of the
investment and benefits in those areas. It was agreed measurement of the
results of expenditure was crucial to justify the monies spent, and that
reporting back to the communities was vital.

The Chair expressed the
Committee’s appreciation of the value of the work by the Community Services
Division, particularly in the Youth area.

Resolved:(Cr
Barratt/Cr Lulich) Minute No. CSC 17206

“That the Committee notes the
updates contained in the report.”

7. Information Item

Community Services Committee Work
Programme
(17/630)

Report No. CSC2017/2/71 by the
Senior Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Bridson) Minute
No. CSC 17207

“That
the work programme be received.”

8. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

9. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved: (Cr Barratt/Cr Sutton)
Minute No. CSC 17208

“That the public
be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting,
namely:

The
general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded,
the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:

The
withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of
natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).

That
the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting
would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good
reason for withholding exist.

This resolution is made in
reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by
section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the
whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as
specified in Column (B) above.”

The Communications and
Marketing Advisor closed the meeting with a Karakia.

There
being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 8.20 pm and
the non public portion of the meeting finished at 8.28 pm.